Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coherent intelligence

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW.

Coherent intelligence

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG - I can't find any reliable independent sources discussing this theory. The article seems to be about an apparently esoteric theory (quantum entanglement in neurons...) devised by a single researcher. I'm not finding it theory discussed in any reliable secondary sources, just Danilov's own writings. Non-notable fringe theory. GirthSummit _(blether) 23:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 23:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The current sources are primary, then some press release news. Could the author be more notable than this hypothesis? Grepping in my pseudoscience related material I found no mention. This also means that there would be no reliable source available to present the topic neutrally. Therefore WP:FAILN... —Paleo Neonate – 00:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pseudoscience, presented as if it would be well-established results, and no notability. --mfb (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like the usual "magic" theory; as PaleoNeonate says, there is no evidence this has been discussed in other circles, therefore is just one writer's rambling. Imaginatorium (talk) 03:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just the old-fashioned concept of telepathy dressed up in pseudoscientific language about quantum entanglement. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, and this doesn't have any. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No secondary sources. Nonsense. - DVdm (talk) 09:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No secondary sources. Very promotional.Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:SOAP. jps (talk) 11:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: author of article is spamming links to their work in various articles: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Compare recurring phrase "...scientist, researcher in the field of communication and sociology Igor Val. Danilov..." - DVdm (talk) 12:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.